Debate contribution: Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 9 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

9 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Question for Urgent Oral Answer

Heading

Budget (No. 2) Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4997710

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Every time I open a Budget Bill, it strikes me that even the most nationalist of MLAs in the House must appreciate our place in the United Kingdom and the financial advantages that it brings. Since coming to the House, we have all — me included — made the case for a more appropriate financial settlement for Northern Ireland based on our unique circumstances. I welcome the appointment of Professor Holtham and look forward to what he has to say ahead of the spending review. However, all that should not blind us to the reality of the eye-watering figure in clause 1(2) of the Bill: £30,772,659,000. Every time a Minister comes to the House and tells us that they have no money for front-line services, that is a figure that every MLA should bear in mind. What did the Executive do with their £30,772,659,000?

I fear that, once the "Made in Stormont" stamp is applied, that is when the squandering starts. We always have to bear in mind and think to ourselves: did we make the best use of that money? Well, my belief, going by the Budget that is before us today, is that we certainly did not.

This Executive are set to continue on their course of squandering money on things that the people of Northern Ireland see no benefit from. In recent days, I have highlighted the fact that the money allocated on page 6, line 11 to the Loughs Agency is of questionable value. That body could disappear in the morning and no one would notice, as its functions could be adequately performed by existing agencies in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. The truth, of course, is that this place is not interested in finding efficiencies when it comes to the sacred cows of cross-border bodies. No one in this Chamber questions the fact that this Budget, when cross-referenced with the Estimates from last week, will see the Loughs Agency get £44,444,000. No one asks what better use could be made of £44 million than giving it to a body with a poor enforcement record, almost no prosecutions and excessive spend on PR and money for scientific work that could be done elsewhere. That £44 million would fund between 176 and 220 GPs a year: 200-odd GPs or the Loughs Agency? I know what I would rather the money is spent on. Let us look at the Department of Health's allocation in this Budget. Minister Nesbitt is constantly telling us about the challenging financial position that he faces. I certainly do not dispute that, but, when I look at his budget, what do I find? In line 8 on page 20, I discover that our Health budget includes money for the Food Safety Promotion Board. That organisation is based in County Cork and does not employ a single person in Northern Ireland, yet we fund it out of the Health budget — according to the Estimates, which we debated last week, to the tune of £2,117,000. That is enough to fund between 47 and 59 band 5 nurses. Members, I could go on and on, but I will concentrate my next remarks on the Assembly Commission. On page 31 of this Bill, that body is getting funding of £62·6 million, according to the Estimates, so that MLAs can award themselves a pay rise and, while doing so, recruit a media monitoring service to type up the transcripts of anyone who dares be critical of this Assembly on 'The Nolan Show' and other shows. What would Northern Ireland do with £62·6 million if we did not have a Assembly? Well, you could get over 2,000 full-time classroom assistants. Let us think about it. Ninety MLAs and all that goes with us, or a couple of thousand classroom assistants? I know what parents would choose. I will spend a short time focusing on a few issues related to the Executive Office. As a member of the Executive Office Committee, I have been able to probe that Department a little more. I want to get the Finance Minister's view on how some of the money for ending violence against women and girls is currently being spent. That is a flagship policy of TEO and is referenced in the Executive Office spend on line 13 of page 29, yet, when we on the Committee drill down into how that money is being spent, we find that a lot of it is simply being doled out to councils — bodies that have, at best, a limited role in stopping violence against women and girls. The Committee has asked all councils for the criteria under which they have awarded the grant money. From the responses received to date, it is a bit of a scattergun approach, with no individual themes or criteria, it appears, being set by TEO. It sounds good that we are spending £2 million to tackle that issue, but surely a collective strategy is required to target problem areas and deliver better outcomes going forward. Take a step back: surely, instead of the Executive's Office's current approach, that money could be better spent by the PSNI and women's sector organisations such as Women's Aid That section of the Bill also deals with the money required for redress for historical child abuse. I want to make two points about that. The House previously passed a Bill dealing with historical institutional abuse. The Committee will shortly begin looking at a Bill dealing with mother-and-baby institutions and Magdalene laundries. The approach in that Bill is in stark contrast to the approach in Scotland, where they started with the child and looked at how common child abuse was and sought to address the problem from there. In Northern Ireland, we are again looking at the buildings in which the abuse happened rather than at the child who suffered the abuse. As one expert in the area asked me, why should a child who suffered abuse in an institution get redress and the child who suffered abuse in a foster home be excluded? Abuse is abuse. I have a second concern about that upcoming Bill: it cannot make the same mistake as the Historical Institutional Abuse Act, which, again, unlike the legislation in Scotland, failed to build in any provision to require institutions to contribute to compensating victims for the abuse suffered while in their care. We have a farcical situation whereby we have a mediator acting for the Executive Office who, apparently, has the job of sometimes asking the institutions nicely if they would mind terribly contributing —

— something to the scheme.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Across the water, the same religious institutions are required by statute to contribute to compensating victims. To date, we do not have that in statute in Northern Ireland. I am passionate that that needs to change. I ask the Minister of Finance, as the guardian of public money, for an assurance that the legislation that is brought forward will have that requirement built in. On Communities in Transition, we are beginning to fund phase 3, and we are still funding the same areas as we did in phase 1, which were identified in data that was collected in 2016. We are told that new areas have been identified but will be supported only if additional money becomes available. One must ask oneself: when do communities in transition become transitioned? That is a question that none of the Executive Office officials has been able to answer to date. The next topic that I want to touch on is addressed in line 38 on page 28 of the Bill, which refers to:

"actions associated with Refugee and Asylum Seeker support and integration"

During the debate on the Main Estimates last week, I highlighted the fact that a number of schemes within the scope of the Executive Office rely on the sole authority of the Budget Act. Five of the 10 schemes listed across the entire sector relate to issues associated with migration: the full dispersal asylum seeker scheme, costing £750,000; the Homes for Ukraine scheme, costing £1,965,000; the strategic migration partnership scheme, costing £37,000; the Northern Ireland refugee resettlement scheme, costing £200,000; and the Afghan citizens resettlement programme and Afghan relocation and assistance policy, costing £1,750,000. Taken together, the cost of those schemes comes to a grand total of almost £5·5 million. The Minister's guidance states that the authority of the Budget Act should be relied on only in certain limited circumstances, and normally for expenditure of no more than £1·5 million. Yet, here we are approving a Budget containing more than three and a half times that figure — an amount that is explicitly marked for issues relating to immigration. Quite apart from all the hidden costs, there is no legislation in place for it. Why is this place, and specifically our First Minister and deputy First Minister, so anxious to avoid debate on those serious issues, which have been caused by immigration? Stormont needs to face the reality that, while immigration policy is not devolved, the task of dealing with it falls largely to the Executive Office.

We are not, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

It is an issue that is contained in the Bill. I have referenced —.

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for acknowledging the work that I have put in to ensuring that I am staying within the remit of the Budget Bill and this debate. I will bring my remarks on those matters to a close. One must ask oneself whether all this money that is being spent is being well spent. Is it delivering? Look at the actions that happened in Ballymena over the weekend. I believe that that is a problem. We are pouring money into strategies that are simply not delivering. I will move on to my next point and bring my remarks to a close. I want to make some observations about the efficiency — rather, the lack of it — in the Executive Office. Last week, I commented on the fact that TEO has spent over £126,000 on foreign travel, including flying a civil servant out to brief the First Minister when she was on holiday instead of using a video call. I will conclude with some observations on the expenditure of the head of the Civil Service, which is addressed at line 24 on page 27 of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The head of the Civil Service sails around the US in a private car, and the deputy First Minister uses another vehicle, while lowly Ministers such as Minister Nesbitt and Minister Lyons get by using public transport. Last week, the 'News Letter' revealed that the head of the Civil Service's budget has increased from £487,891 in the year before Mrs Brady took up her post in 2021 to a staggering £848,586 in the last financial year. This Budget wastes too much on vanity, duplication and unaccountable bodies. Too little is spent on things that matter. At the centre of it all, the Assembly absorbs millions while too many working families struggle to access basic services. I began by pointing out the figure of £30 billion in the Budget, but now consider this: if the public ever ask, "Where did our £30 billion go?", what will you say as an MLA or a Minister? They will not find the answer in a hospital ward or a classroom. Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

1,917 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:47 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification